:00:51. > :00:54.In the South, if not in my backyard, then whose? We look at the
:00:54. > :00:57.Government's new planning system. Aware deliver housing or concrete
:00:57. > :01:07.over the green belts? After Dale Farm, what is going on
:01:07. > :01:07.
:01:07. > :30:42.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1774 seconds
:30:42. > :30:48.Welcome to the part of the show especially for us. I am Peter
:30:48. > :30:51.Henley. Today, we saw the eviction from the Dale Farm travellers' site
:30:51. > :30:57.this week, but controversy over travellers' sites is not confined
:30:57. > :31:01.to Essex. We have had a lot of trouble from travellers' sites,
:31:01. > :31:05.they leave it in such a terrible mess.
:31:05. > :31:09.Warned that later. One thing the Government has been keen on from
:31:09. > :31:11.the start is reform of the planning system. They did away with the
:31:11. > :31:15.regional spatial strategies which detailed how much house building
:31:15. > :31:20.needed to be done and where. They have just finished the consultation
:31:20. > :31:26.of what will be put in its place, the National Policy Planning
:31:26. > :31:30.Framework or NPPF. It has had plenty of claims attached to it.
:31:30. > :31:35.That it will allow developers to build everywhere, that it will be a
:31:35. > :31:40.nimby's charter or that it will empower local communities to say
:31:40. > :31:44.what power -- development they want. It cannot be all of those things,
:31:44. > :31:51.so to tease out what it might actually be, we have a range of
:31:51. > :31:56.guests in the studio. We have someone from the Federation of
:31:57. > :32:04.Master house builders, a Conservative MP and Leader of the
:32:04. > :32:09.Opposition on Hampshire County Council.
:32:09. > :32:13.We want houses, so prices continue to rise. I knew getting what you
:32:13. > :32:20.would like to see from the Coalition Government? It is fair to
:32:20. > :32:26.say that broadly, we welcome NPPF. It is not a question of the fact
:32:26. > :32:32.that we want houses. The reality is that we need houses. And business.
:32:33. > :32:42.But the country needs houses. in excess of 230,000 every year is
:32:42. > :32:52.what is required from 2008 to 2033. Last year, we built just under
:32:52. > :32:56.103,000. The ongoing disparity between new houses, new households
:32:56. > :33:05.and the Net build affect means that by the time we get to the end of
:33:05. > :33:14.this Parliament, we will need to build, in affect, enough houses to
:33:14. > :33:18.create a new Birmingham. In excess of 500,000 households. Scrapping
:33:18. > :33:22.those regional targets, that just slowed the whole process down,
:33:22. > :33:27.didn't it? It is about getting a better system in freight -- place.
:33:27. > :33:32.The point about pent-up demand is real. We are all meeting people who
:33:32. > :33:36.come to see us at surgery he want homes, affordable homes, they want
:33:36. > :33:40.to get onto the property ladder. No-one has got anything to fear.
:33:40. > :33:44.The consultation has just finished. Select committees will be looking
:33:44. > :33:50.at this in the autumn. We are open to sensible ideas for change. This
:33:50. > :33:57.is about making the planning system more efficient. We want to make it
:33:57. > :34:03.sustainable in the long term. going to be quick enough? I believe
:34:03. > :34:07.it will be quick enough, although it will be difficult to say at this
:34:07. > :34:14.stage. The test will come in practice. The National Trust has
:34:14. > :34:19.been doing a bit of lobbying. You are concerned this is a rush for
:34:19. > :34:23.development. We have concerns. We have from the outset been clear
:34:24. > :34:29.about what our concerns are, and they are not that we are against
:34:29. > :34:33.development. We have built hundreds of houses over the last couple of
:34:33. > :34:38.years as the National Trust. What we have concerns about is that the
:34:38. > :34:43.planning system will be turned into a primary economic development will.
:34:43. > :34:49.The rest of the van system will be forgotten. Our concern is that this
:34:49. > :34:59.will be run on short-term economic development. We have concerns about
:34:59. > :35:01.
:35:01. > :35:07.that, and what we want to see is that the NPPF should look at all
:35:07. > :35:12.sides of the sustainable development policy. Planning should
:35:12. > :35:15.be for the Environment, it for social command and for profit. But
:35:15. > :35:20.we should make sure the planning system is about people, not short-
:35:20. > :35:27.term profit. One was that not bearing the first place? I think
:35:27. > :35:30.that is some sloppy wording. I do not think this -- there was a fear
:35:30. > :35:36.about an untrammelled development. I think there has been some
:35:36. > :35:41.scaremongering about this document. Know. Not subtle. The National
:35:41. > :35:45.Trust has been very clear. We are concerned about the two-thirds of
:35:45. > :35:50.the south-west's countryside which is an protected. It is not about
:35:50. > :35:55.areas are out -- areas of outstanding national beauty, but
:35:55. > :36:00.about the unprotected two-thirds of the countryside. If you look at how
:36:00. > :36:07.many officials, something like twice as many as officials from the
:36:07. > :36:14.Treasury behind this paper than there were from Defra. You are
:36:14. > :36:18.missing the point. It is about returning powers to local people.
:36:18. > :36:24.No council in its right mind is going to allow development right at
:36:24. > :36:27.the way across the countryside. If you have local control, you will
:36:28. > :36:31.get the best decisions for local communities. The problem we have
:36:31. > :36:36.had in the past is that planning has been centralised, it has been
:36:36. > :36:39.about officials in Whitehall and Westminster. This is about handing
:36:39. > :36:43.power back to local communities. It might not speeded up, but it would
:36:44. > :36:49.get better results. In what speeded-up G that is a problem for
:36:49. > :36:53.you. We do not know if it is going to speed it up or not. We will not
:36:53. > :36:59.know until it is implemented. The consultation process has not
:36:59. > :37:08.finished. I would make the point that we are looking at changing a
:37:08. > :37:12.process. If those process changes - - that process changes, we are not
:37:12. > :37:20.going to see banks suddenly turning down credit. Money will not
:37:20. > :37:25.suddenly become available to builders. It is not going to be as
:37:25. > :37:31.simple as that. That is a problem. This is about a dress in a system
:37:31. > :37:37.which has become incredibly complex, come the Senate and out of control.
:37:37. > :37:40.There are thousands of pages of guidance for certain things. The
:37:40. > :37:46.one thing that it has been good for his membership of the National
:37:46. > :37:50.Trust, which must be booming. because people care much about
:37:50. > :38:00.protecting the countryside. people who care about protecting it
:38:00. > :38:02.
:38:02. > :38:07.are those who live there. That is why a, if you return proper power,
:38:07. > :38:10.people will not allow their councillors to come up with
:38:10. > :38:15.inappropriate developments which are on the communities they live in.
:38:15. > :38:18.Will they allow any development? One of the problems with the
:38:18. > :38:23.planning system is that people do not trusted any more, because it
:38:23. > :38:28.has not give them -- given them what they wanted. It should be
:38:28. > :38:32.about local communities, meeting community needs. It also includes
:38:32. > :38:38.jobs, schools, roads and everything else we need to make society work.
:38:38. > :38:43.For example it, if you take the slowing-down since the general
:38:43. > :38:46.election in planning. The result of that in my patch is that we have
:38:46. > :38:51.saved green fields from 300,000 homes that would have been built on
:38:51. > :38:55.the last Government's regime. We added to get those homes built in
:38:55. > :38:58.the right places, in towns, in existing communities. We want to
:38:58. > :39:04.see good development, I think everyone agrees on that. Will we
:39:04. > :39:09.get it? That is the concern. What the NPPF does is allow developers
:39:09. > :39:13.to make an easy run of things. What we are concerned about is that we
:39:13. > :39:17.want to see the right development in the right place. Nobody yet has
:39:17. > :39:23.really screwed down the definition of sustainable development. We have
:39:23. > :39:28.had a couple of goes at it. We are wanting the Government to clarify
:39:28. > :39:36.what they mean. Let us look at a real example. We are seeing our
:39:36. > :39:43.town centres in depopulated of shops. It is not sustainable to
:39:43. > :39:50.have lots of empty shopfronts in sound senses. That creates
:39:50. > :39:58.vandalism. Local authorities can now give protection to green spaces
:39:58. > :40:04.within urban centres, which they could not do the 4th. Last word to
:40:04. > :40:10.the National Trust. Targets for brownfield sites are being
:40:10. > :40:14.withdrawn from the NPPF. We have to draw that to a close. Thank you.
:40:14. > :40:18.One bit of planning which has had a high profile this week is the
:40:18. > :40:21.provision of travellers' sites. The eviction at Dale Farm brought it
:40:22. > :40:31.into our living rooms. As our correspondent reports, it is not
:40:32. > :40:32.
:40:32. > :40:37.just a problem for Essex. You cheated as! Dale Farm in Essex
:40:37. > :40:43.this week. Riot police and bailiffs evicted protesters and residents
:40:43. > :40:46.from the largest illegal travellers' site in the country.
:40:46. > :40:51.Nobody will want is on their doorstep again. Gypsies will have
:40:51. > :40:54.better rides from now on because no authority wants to see this.
:40:54. > :40:59.Authorities are taking action out to avoid similar confrontations in
:40:59. > :41:03.the South. Under the Housing Act 2004, all councils have an
:41:03. > :41:09.obligation to identify sites suitable for use by gypsies and
:41:09. > :41:15.travellers. In Dorset, all councils have chipped in one quarter live a
:41:15. > :41:19.million pounds to draw up a shortlist of sight. Neither local
:41:19. > :41:29.residents or borough councils are thrilled at the prospect. Across
:41:29. > :41:32.Dorset, they need to provide 600 extra pitches. In Poole, the
:41:33. > :41:37.borough council rejected all suggested size. Two of the sides
:41:37. > :41:41.are right next to schools. We have got ain't long way to go with his
:41:41. > :41:46.consultation. I am keen to explore the possibility of working more
:41:46. > :41:50.closely with our neighbours, with Bournemouth and perhaps the
:41:50. > :41:54.neighbouring Dorset authorities, to see if it is possible to come up
:41:55. > :41:58.with a common approach. That might sound like passing the buck,
:41:58. > :42:04.getting a neighbouring council to take more than its fair share of
:42:04. > :42:09.new sites. That does not sit well with the strategy for the county of
:42:09. > :42:12.Dorset as a whole. It is all done on the basis of how many pitches
:42:12. > :42:17.are needed in each of the districts and boroughs. They each have to
:42:17. > :42:22.deal with very own particular needs. It cannot be passed on from one
:42:22. > :42:25.district to another. I did not in that is right. At a neighbouring
:42:25. > :42:30.resort, three sides have been suggested by consultants, but none
:42:30. > :42:33.have been universally welcomed. This these are scrubbed at
:42:33. > :42:38.Lansdowne in Bournemouth is proposed as a transit site, but one
:42:38. > :42:41.MP is quoted as saying that Bournemouth is full and that there
:42:41. > :42:46.are no suitable sites. Local residents have formed a campaign
:42:46. > :42:51.group, and in just one week, they have gathered 100 signatures on a
:42:51. > :42:58.petition against the plan. Laings and carries a huge burden already
:42:58. > :43:02.with homeless shelters, drug and alcohol centres and we have a huge
:43:02. > :43:06.population of students and elderly residents. I'm trying not to be
:43:06. > :43:10.prejudiced, but we have had a lot of trouble from medieval
:43:10. > :43:15.travellers' sites, and they leave everything in a terrible mess. They
:43:15. > :43:21.came here one Christmas and trashed it. With travellers' sites comes
:43:21. > :43:25.trouble. I'm not saying they all did, but the majority do. We have a
:43:25. > :43:29.small community here and you know everyone. You need to be
:43:29. > :43:36.comfortable. As soon as you come across a lot of strangers you do
:43:36. > :43:41.not know, it can be scary, intimidating and problems can come
:43:41. > :43:45.from that. Travellers at the sides in pulled were reluctant to be
:43:45. > :43:49.interviewed, but those who represent their interests say many
:43:49. > :43:53.more pitches are required. travel and Romany community have
:43:53. > :43:59.told us that the number of proposed sites and pitches will not be
:43:59. > :44:03.enough to meet the needs -- needs of the community. Issues should be
:44:03. > :44:09.able to be addressed better, because the welfare of the
:44:09. > :44:15.community needs to be taking into account. How frustrating is it that
:44:15. > :44:20.residence abject and councils reject schemes? It is frustrating
:44:20. > :44:24.for all communities, because unless the issue is dealt with, it is not
:44:24. > :44:30.going to go away. The major change perception is for people to talk
:44:30. > :44:35.together, and that is not happening. If local residents and councils are
:44:35. > :44:38.reluctant to engage in the consultation, where does that leave
:44:38. > :44:42.Dorset's gypsy and travellers strategy? Is it merely
:44:42. > :44:45.aspirational? I would like to think it is more than that. There is
:44:45. > :44:48.always a degree of aspiration in everything you try to do in this
:44:48. > :44:52.world, but I think there is a practical need to look at the
:44:52. > :45:02.provision of sides. We could end up with those eyes at all, but we do
:45:02. > :45:06.
:45:06. > :45:11.have to have a policy and we have to make sure that we can provide.
:45:11. > :45:15.The consultations will run and sell early next year. Meanwhile, Dorset
:45:15. > :45:19.police say they welcome any new pitches which make it easier to
:45:19. > :45:23.evict groups from that lit -- illegal sides. They want to avoid
:45:23. > :45:27.confrontations such as those seen at Dale Farm.
:45:27. > :45:31.What you've been Dale Farm will do for the attitude of local councils
:45:31. > :45:36.to travellers' sites? I think it shows the system does not work. The
:45:36. > :45:39.issue of Dale Farm has set back a sensible debate about this policy
:45:39. > :45:46.area by some distance, because people have moved into entrenched
:45:46. > :45:51.positions. We should never have had to see those appalling scenes.
:45:51. > :45:56.the moment, it is pass the parcel. Not always. I have got a site on
:45:56. > :46:00.the board of Southampton which causes no difficulties at will.
:46:00. > :46:04.Most people probably do not know it is there. But, and it is an
:46:04. > :46:11.enormous but, the problems we have with illegal encampments cause
:46:11. > :46:15.immense distress. We have got to find a solution. It means it
:46:15. > :46:18.councils working collaboratively to find solutions and engaging with
:46:18. > :46:22.the Gypsy Traveller community. is it not clear that councils can
:46:22. > :46:26.or cannot work together to sort this out? It is clear at the moment
:46:26. > :46:31.that they cannot. I have been to talk to the Secretary of State at
:46:31. > :46:36.on this. Both members of the Coalition government agreed before
:46:36. > :46:40.the election that we do as Kee suggests. Councils should get
:46:40. > :46:43.together and remove the inquire much on individual authorities and
:46:43. > :46:48.identify corporate sides which work better. We have not yet what --
:46:48. > :46:54.done that and I want to know why. What is the answer? We are still
:46:54. > :46:58.consulting. White residents do not understand why Bournemouth council
:46:58. > :47:03.is going into consultation on this. The reason is that it is a
:47:03. > :47:06.requirement laid down by the last government whose policy is still in
:47:06. > :47:12.place. The Department for Communities and Local Government
:47:12. > :47:16.are finding that across Dorset to the tune of �150,000. The other
:47:16. > :47:19.thing they do not understand is why they councillors cannot speak out
:47:19. > :47:23.against the sides. The reason is that it is speak out against
:47:23. > :47:28.individual sides, they lose the right to participate in the
:47:28. > :47:32.decision-making process. I am not so constrained. Eyes can say I am
:47:32. > :47:36.absolutely opposed to any site, because it is wrong to Bournemouths
:47:36. > :47:40.for Bournemouth. With inflation hitting a new high, many families
:47:40. > :47:45.are struggling to make ends meet. According to a new report, the most
:47:45. > :47:49.expensive way of getting alone our doorstep lenders, but they are
:47:49. > :47:52.roughen the only people that the less well-off can go to for a loan.
:47:52. > :47:56.There is a growing campaign to boost the profile and funding of
:47:56. > :48:01.credit unions as a fairer and cheaper alternative. Earlier this
:48:01. > :48:05.week, I met up with the chair are all highly -- All Party
:48:05. > :48:09.Parliamentary Group on Credit Unions, N P Damian Hinds.
:48:09. > :48:17.Credit unions are a way of keeping people's' local savings within it
:48:17. > :48:21.area. It is a good way of helping the local community whilst still
:48:21. > :48:25.getting a return on your savings. Is it not about doorstep lending as
:48:25. > :48:31.well? Some of the huge amounts of interests -- interest that people
:48:32. > :48:36.are paying... It can be a real problem for people. People can get
:48:36. > :48:42.into a seemingly unending cycle of debt. We want to provide credit
:48:42. > :48:48.unions, an alternative. There is a much lower cost alternative
:48:48. > :48:51.available to people to borrow from a socially responsible source. They
:48:51. > :48:55.have an interest in helping those people manage their finances and
:48:55. > :48:58.helping them to get out of financial difficulty. In a sense,
:48:58. > :49:02.is this not the wrong time to do this kind of socially aware
:49:02. > :49:07.lending? People will be much more likely to default. Credit unions
:49:07. > :49:11.are not just about lending, they are about saving. They are about a
:49:11. > :49:21.good, local safe place to keep your savings. It is absolutely right
:49:21. > :49:23.
:49:23. > :49:32.that we encourage a savings habit as well as a credit habit. This is
:49:32. > :49:37.why the Government is being supported to the sector. They are
:49:37. > :49:42.driving through what is called a legislative reform to help credit
:49:42. > :49:52.unions expand. Does this apply in East Hampshire or is it Ervin G it
:49:52. > :49:55.
:49:55. > :50:03.applies all over the place. model works in lots of places. If
:50:04. > :50:10.you look at the United States, credit unions cover all areas. It
:50:10. > :50:13.is important for credit unions to have a good mix of customers, so
:50:13. > :50:18.you want people he was saving as well as people who are borrowing.
:50:18. > :50:24.You want people at higher income levels as well as those that lowers
:50:24. > :50:28.-- at lower income levels. You are doing something useful with in your